Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said that President Joe Biden always respects the rule of law, so he is confident the president will accept whatever the Supreme Court rules in coming days as to whether former President Donald Trump is immune from prosecution.

“I think there’s a sharp contrast between former President Trump and President Biden in terms of their respect for the rule of law and how they approach both law enforcement and our legal system,” Coon said in an interview Sunday morning with Shannon Bream on “Fox News Sunday.”

When asked whether Biden would accept the decision of the Supreme Court expected this week — after criticizing the Supreme Court in the past for decisions related to his student loan forgiveness plans, among other things — Coons said Biden’s recent actions prove he respects the law and will do so if the court says Trump is immune from prosecution for actions taken during his presidency. The Democratic senator compared Biden’s handling of his son’s federal gun case to Trump’s recent guilty verdict from a New York jury as a “sharp and clear contrast in how they respect the rule of law.”

“Former President Trump was in a courtroom in New York where he attacked the prosecutor, the prosecution, the judge, the jury, the whole process so many times that before he was ultimately convicted by a jury of his peers of 34 felonies he was subject to a gag order,” Coons said. “President Biden, we just saw evidence of this this past week, his own son was convicted here in a court in Wilmington, Delaware, and he did not ever attack or criticize or question the judge, the prosecutor, the jury, the process.”

When pressed on the topic, Coons also said he has brought up his own issues about the Supreme Court — specifically on the lack of a code of ethics. He specifically called out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for accepting unreported gifts and travel over this time in the court and blamed Republican senators for blocking the proposed Supreme Court Ethics Recusal and Transparency Act.

“Every other federal judge in our country has a binding code of ethics. So does the Senate, so does the House,” Coons said. “I think the supreme court should as well.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) sent a letter to his GOP colleagues Sunday targeting proposed rule changes from the right flank of Senate Republicans — and offering some alternative ideas of his own.

The North Carolina senator has been vocally railing against Senate conservatives’ proposals — namely one that would impose a six-year term limit on the next Senate GOP leader, which he argues would weaken the position. Outgoing Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has echoed those concerns. In the letter, Tillis notes that the Senate Democrats’ leader has no term limits, nor does either party in the House.

“Mitch [McConnell] has been elected 9 times and 8 of those were unopposed,” Tillis wrote in the letter. “Nothing has prevented any member from mounting a challenge in the past. Having terms limits on the leader could make the political side of the job more difficult.”

But Tillis goes on to point out areas he suggests the conference could improve. He specifically compared Senate Republican conference rules to Senate Democrats’ caucus rules — and outlined differences that he thinks give Senate Democratic leaders a leg up. He said he is not outright “advocating” for any rules changes, but instead “providing food for thought on how we could address some of the frustrations of our members.”

It’s the latest evidence of Senate Republicans’ rift over the future of their party conference, where the race to succeed McConnell is ramping up. Sens. John Cornyn (R-Texas), Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and John Thune (R-S.D.) have all entered the race, and questions over new rules they’d support are becoming centerpoints of their bids.

Among those differences in party rules, Tillis noted the Senate Democratic leader gets to appoint the chair of the caucus’ campaign arm, a selection that is “ratified by the conference.” He said allowing the Republican leader, who currently does not appoint the Republican campaign-arm chair, to do the same could prevent intraparty friction.

“Having the leader nominate the [National Republican Senatorial Committee] chair subject to conference ratification could make it more likely the NRSC chair will be in alignment with the priorities of the Republican leader and reduce the risk of conflicts in messaging and priorities,” Tillis wrote.

The senator also pointed out differences in the committee-assignments process between Republicans and Democrats. Currently, the Democratic leader is in charge of filling all open committee spots, while the Republican leader has more limited power over such assignments.

Tillis wrote that expanding the GOP leader’s authority over committee assignments to match Democrats’ “could empower the leader to position members on committees most likely to carry the agenda of the majority of the conference forward.”

The senator identified a number of other proposals, including tweaks to the amendments process and rules for blocking action on the floor. He also proposed new conditions that would compel the leader to close a vote that’s gone past its allotted time if just one member has not voted and that member’s vote would not change the outcome, among other parameters. That would speed up votes on the Senate floor, which regularly go on for an hour or more as members trot in and out.

“These could be adopted by a vote of the conference and would be non-binding to members but would serve more as public guiding principles,” Tillis wrote.

There’s a long time between now and the leadership elections, when the bulk of these ideas within the conference will be put on the hot spot. And other ideas for rules changes are likely to come out as GOP senators decide which leadership candidates they’ll throw their weight behind.

But Tillis said he was just getting started.

“This is by no means an exhaustive list. I share it as a starting point for a discussion of the pros and cons of any changes as we make our first transition in conference leadership in 18 years,” Tillis added. “Looking forward, I believe a thorough discussion of these, and other ideas would be a good use of our time.”

Senate conservatives have a list of early demands for anyone who wants to replace Mitch McConnell: Commit to term limits on the top spot, revamp internal committee assignments and do not bend to Democrats, even on must-pass legislation.

That pressure has turned willingness to work across the aisle into the preeminent wedge issue in the race for GOP leader as Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.) fight for supporters behind the scenes.

It reflects the right flank’s growing frustration with the longest-serving Republican leader’s occasional interest in working with the other side on issues like spending, infrastructure and foreign aid — a criticism considered laughable less than a decade ago. Few younger Republicans recall McConnell’s longtime reputation as the “Grim Reaper” who killed Democratic bills, or his zeal in blocking Merrick Garland from a spot on the Supreme Court.

But the GOP leader has steered his conference away from government shutdowns, preferring to compromise and move on rather than see voters blame his party for the resulting mess. Senate conservatives, buoyed by former President Donald Trump’s bombastic style of politicking, argue that’s an antiquated way of thinking.

“Compromise is not the problem,” said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah). “The problem is where you choose to make the deals and where you draw the line, in particular in spending bills. Yeah, I got a problem with how they’ve been drawn.”

Hardline Republicans like Lee, though they’re in the minority of the GOP, are pushing back against a more conciliatory wing of their conference that sees the Senate as a bastion of bipartisan collaboration in a broken capital. So, Lee is pushing leadership hopefuls and colleagues to join a pledge to block all “political and judicial” nominees for the rest of the term and muck up Democratic legislative priorities — tactics the right launched after Donald Trump was convicted.

Still, in a Senate where neither party is close to the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster, many Republicans say there are limits to how many wins they can stack up — especially in the minority.

It’s a dynamic that McConnell is very familiar with.

“I read that one of my colleagues said my job was to be with whatever position was the majority position of my conference,” McConnell said in an interview earlier this spring, addressing internal criticism of his leadership.

Had that been the case, McConnell added, “we would have never raised the debt ceiling and never funded the government.”

The GOP leader has also publicly and privately advocated against weakening the leader’s power, including at a private conference lunch this month. He and allies argue conservative proposals like term limits would hamstring the leader, affecting the ability to fundraise and avert legislative disaster.

“[McConnell] has strong feelings about the role of the leader and what’s necessary for a successful conference,” said Cornyn, referring to McConnell’s comments at the closed-door meeting. “That’s what I concluded from it.”

Thune said McConnell has relayed his concerns to the conference and that he believes “everybody will take his advice to heart.” Cornyn had endorsed putting a three-term limit on the leader, as has Scott, while Thune has said it’s worth discussing but made no firm commitments.

Asked about the general conservative complaints, Cornyn said he’s not running his leadership race through the press and declined to weigh in on how he’d tackle bipartisanship as leader. Thune, the current GOP whip, said he understands his fellow senators’ perspective but that “if there are things that we have to get done, then I’ve got to be able to do that.” Scott, who’s previously challenged McConnell, said he is advocating for strengthened committees and “a robust amendment process” for input on legislation.

Forcing the Senate GOP leader to get a majority of Republicans on board for every action is almost surely impossible in practice. On a day-to-day-basis, though, some of the conference’s most rabble-rousing are questioning GOP leaders’ day-to-day strategies.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a McConnell critic, said he feels rank-and-file members don’t get enough input and alleged that current leadership likes “to stay as far away from members as possible.”

“Don’t listen, don’t talk to members. Don’t listen to any priorities,” he said, describing the status quo in the Senate GOP. “And try to manipulate them into getting them to do what you want them to do.”

McConnell and his leadership team attend weekly party lunches to discuss conference matters, including member pushback to legislation or other issues. And McConnell has at times backed away from legislation when it’s lost the support of his conference, like the recent border deal negotiated between Senate Democrats and Republicans earlier this year.

Still, McConnell critics like Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said “we have a leadership vacuum right now. We’re pretty well rudderless.”

Johnson is among those who has signed Lee’s letter vowing to block nominees on the Senate floor in response to Trump’s conviction, which has become something of a litmus test among ambitious conservatives. Scott has signed on, as has Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), who is competing for the conference’s No. 3 spot.

Yet multiple signers of the letter have since supported some Biden nominees, underscoring just how difficult it is for leaders to stonewall action in a chamber that relies on frequent agreements among all 100 members.

There is a second Senate GOP pledge circulating to block all judicial and U.S. attorney nominees, specifically targeting those who “have suggested the Trump prosecutions were reasonable.” Fewer senators have co-signed that effort, and no leadership candidates have endorsed it.

The long list of demands coming from the right is reminding some Senate Republicans of last year’s speaker’s race, where conservatives tried to hold former Speaker Kevin McCarthy to a lofty list of promises in exchange for electing him to lead the chamber. Once elected, they’d hoped McCarthy would avoid working with Democrats as much as possible.

When the impending breach of the debt limit forced McCarthy to work across the aisle, his ouster became all but assured. The monthlong chaos that followed his exit left many House Republicans openly embarrassed about their disarray.

Some Senate GOP dealmakers are worried they’re about to perform a cover of McCarthy’s sad ballad, warning that it’s misguided to slap handcuffs on the incoming leader before he or she even tries to guide the conference.

“We will be making an enormous mistake if we let a minority of our members further weaken an already weak leader,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.). He charged that some Senate Republicans “are just not paying attention to the reality of what has occurred as a result of that in the House.”

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), among the most bipartisan-friendly senators in the chamber, said McConnell has done “what he thinks is right.” And as for the next leader, she added, “I don’t think it’s going to change.”

She may be proven right. The November leadership elections are still months away, and votes are cast in private. That means even the conference’s most vocal rabble-rousers are protected from public scrutiny, should they choose to vote for a pragmatic candidate.

In addition, other leadership hopefuls could still hop into the race. Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who chairs the conference’s campaign arm, remains the most prominent possible contender. If Election Day proves fruitful for the Senate GOP, Daines could jump in and make it interesting: He’s a staunch conservative who is already backing a tough legislative response to Trump’s conviction.

Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), a pugnacious first-term lawmaker, said he’s still open-minded about the leadership race. But as he talks to candidates, he’s looking for a change agent.

“I just want to make sure that our conference is in touch with our voters, right? And the people who send us here want us to fight for certain things. I want our agenda to reflect that,” Schmitt said. “That will be important for whoever the next leader is.”

The White House has grown anxious about Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming address to a joint session of Congress, believing the Israeli prime minister could use the forum to criticize President Joe Biden for not supporting the retaliation against Hamas in Gaza enough.

The speech next month could create a diplomatically complicated and politically dicey spectacle for a president running for reelection. Fears among West Wing aides have grown in recent days as Netanyahu has made a series of public statements — including one in a video address delivered in English — accusing the administration of withholding more military aid than has been publicly disclosed.

“[Netanyahu’s] video this week was not helpful at all,” said one senior official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about internal deliberations. “And he could make it far worse up there in front of Congress.”

Another senior official put it more bluntly: “No one knows what he’s going to say.”

Frictions have deepened between Biden and Netanyahu since the start of the Israel-Hamas war, with Biden aides increasingly believing that the Israeli leader is prolonging the conflict to stay in power — and that he would prefer Donald Trump return to the White House. And the war has created a thorny political dilemma for Biden, who has been slammed by Republicans for insufficiently supporting Israel yet at the same time also taken heat from some members of his own party for not protecting Palestinian civilians.

But the accusations lobbed by Netanyahu over the past few days have put the relationship at a new nadir, taking the West Wing by surprise and leaving Biden aides deeply frustrated, according to the officials. The Biden administration postponed a high-level U.S.-Israel meeting on Iran after the release of Netanyahu’s video.

“We genuinely do not know what he’s talking about,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said this week. She, and other aides, insisted that only one shipment was paused, with no other changes to weapons transfers.

As of this week, the White House had yet to send an invitation for Netanyahu to meet with Biden when he comes to Washington for his scheduled speech on July 24, according to the first senior official and two others. Those officials stressed that such an invitation will likely be offered — noting that it would be a major slap in the face if the two leaders did not meet and that Biden was not inclined to make such a public rebuke of his Israeli counterpart.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the invitation.

But meetings have been taking place at slightly lower levels. Israeli national security adviser Tzachi Hanegbi and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer met Thursday at the White House with national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken. The group discussed the war against Hamas, the state of Gaza and Netanyahu’s forthcoming visit. The video — and the rancor it caused in Washington — was briefly mentioned, two U.S. officials said.

Matthew Miller, the State Department spokesperson, hinted at the message Blinken delivered in the meeting.

“I don’t think it’s productive to engage in an intense public back and forth about this,” he told reporters Thursday, adding that Blinken in a meeting with Netanyahu last week assured the prime minister “our commitment to Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”

Inside the West Wing, aides believe that Netanyahu will use the congressional speech to address his audience at home as much as in the U.S., according to one of the senior officials. The prime minister will likely express gratitude for the United States’ help and stress the longstanding alliance between the two nations. But aides also anticipate that Netanyahu will ask for more assistance without any conditions — something they suspect will be icily received by Democrats.

The big unknown, the senior official admitted, is if Netanyahu will use the moment to offer any specific criticisms of Biden or his response to Israel’s operations in Gaza. The West Wing is keenly aware of Netanyahu’s precarious domestic political situation, in which he is trying to placate the far-right members of his coalition who want further escalation of the war against Hamas. For the prime minister, being perceived at home as fighting Biden could be helpful.

Airing his grievances about arms transfers with the Biden administration openly, Netanyahu told Punchbowl News in an interview published Friday, “was absolutely necessary after months of quiet conversation that did not solve the problem.”

“I’m not a partisan, I’m not a Republican or a Democrat. I’m an Israeli patriot, and I speak on behalf of the Israeli people,” he continued.

Netanyahu has used speeches to Congress for his political purposes before, infuriating the Obama-Biden White House when he addressed a joint session in 2015 to attack that administration’s proposed Iran nuclear deal.

That 2015 speech was not received well by progressive Democrats, who have only grown more critical of Netanyahu since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war. Democrats have chastised the Israeli PM for disregarding humanitarian concerns in Gaza and empowering a far-right government in Israel.

“I didn’t attend last time, for obvious reasons,” said Rep. Andre Carson (D-Ind.). “I think that Americans are becoming more deeply concerned about what is being done to taxpayer dollars as it relates to what’s happening in that region.”

Some progressives, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have indicated they will skip the late July speech.

Shadowing the address is the long-term status of U.S. aid to Israel. The White House helped shepherd a massive weapons package through Congress and has consistently signed off on additional arms shipments. But it withheld a shipment of 3,500 bombs believing they would cause unnecessary devastation if used on the densely populated city of Rafah.

Around that time, House Republicans invited Netanyahu to speak before Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a strong Israel supporter but a vocal Netanyahu critic, dropped initial reservations about the address and assented to the invitation. “The White House was not surprised by the invitation,” said a Schumer spokesperson.

A year ago, Netanyahu sought a White House meeting with Biden in the midst of a backlash at home to his proposal to overhaul Israel’s judicial system. The president, who had spoken out against the changes, declined, and instead met with the Israeli prime minister on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly.

Not even three weeks later, Hamas terrorists stormed over the Israeli border, propelling the region into war and irrevocably changing the dynamic between the two leaders.